A travesty of justice

Sep 08, 2010 Letters

---

Dear Editor,
Every human being is born with the cardinal right to liberty/freedom. This right has been enshrined in the constitutions of all democratic countries. It is a right which is jealousy guarded and cannot be easily infringed by the law, law officers and/or the Government of any democratic country.
In the constitution of the Republic of Guyana, the right of a citizen to “freedom” is spelt out in no uncertain terms in Article 139 which contains six sections and 20 sub-sections.
An arrest warrant issued by a Magistrate is the curtailment of the right to freedom and liberty and generally can only be issued by a Magistrate where a Prosecutor requests same and leads evidence that a person charged is NOT LIKELY TO ATTEND HIS TRIAL, is likely to commit the offence(s) for which he is charged again, or is likely to influence the witnesses the evidence of whom the prosecution will rely in the trial of the offence charged, which incidentally are also the main reasons for the Refusal of Bail.
Where a citizen is charged with offences under the Summary Jurisdiction Act and does not attend court on the date of the first calling of the offences, there is no written law that a Magistrate has the power to issue an Arrest Warrant for the Defendant without sworn evidence being taken from the police.
Mr. Jainarayan Singh, an eminent lawyer of 20 years prior to his appointment as an acting Puisne Judge of the High Court for eight years, was charged with four offences under the Motor Vehicle and Road Traffic Act Chapter 51:00 of the Laws of Guyana.
All the offences with which Mr. Singh was charged were under the Summary Jurisdiction Act, and were filed and brought before Magistrate Mr. Haymant Ramdhani on Wednesday 11th August, 2010 at Cove and John Magistrate’s Court and were called at 2:00pm, when the Court room was almost empty.
When Mr. Singh’s matters were called, the Magistrate noted Mr. Singh’s absence and immediately issued an Arrest Warrant for Mr. Singh. The Arrest Warrant was served on Mr. Singh at his residence, 273 Lamaha Street, Georgetown, where he has been residing for 30 years, at 5pm on Saturday 14th August, 2010, some four  days after its issue.
On Wednesday 11th August, 2010, the same Magistrate sat at the MahaiconyMagistrate’s Court in the morning. Three Attorneys were present at that court, Mr. Singh, Mr.P.Mahadeo, and Mr. Rexford Jackson when the Magistrate announced that he would be working in that court up to 11:15am as he had to work at Cove and John Magistrate’s Court in the afternoon.
The Magistrate had clearly seen Mr. Singh as he had four criminal matters before him at Mahaicony on the said date. These were all called and dealt with by Magistrate Ramdhani.
On Thursday 12th August, 2010, Mr. Singh was present at two Police Stations on the East Coast seeking bail for two of his clients who were in police custody, and on Friday 13th August, 2010, Mr. Singh appeared before Justice Patterson in two undefended divorce petitions in the High Court. No Arrest Warrant was served on him.
At all material times, the police at Cove and John were well aware of Mr. Singh’s home and office addresses and respective telephone numbers.
It is clear that the service of the Arrest Warrant on Mr. Singh was orchestrated for Saturday 14th August, 2010, as the fact of the issue and service of the Arrest Warrant were headlines in the Kaieteur News and Stabroek News of Sunday 15th August, 2010, thereby causing Mr. Jainarayan Singh and his family grave embarrassment, although both newspapers falselystated that the Arrest Warrant was issued on Friday 13th August, 2010 Cove and John Magistrate’s Court. The Magistrate himself on 184‘’ August, 2010 in open Court verified that the Arrest Warrant was issued on Wednesday 11th August, 2010 and NOT FRIDAY 13th August, 2010, as the Court at Cove and John did not sit on Friday 13th August, 2010.
On Monday 16th August, 2010, Mr. Singh surrendered to custody at the Mahaicony Magistrate’s Court where Magistrate Ramdhani was sitting. His lawyers submitted that the Arrest Warrant had been illegally issued and challenged the Police Prosecutor to produce (1) A notice of intended prosecution (2) A summons served on Mr. Singh and (3) A transcript of the evidence that a Police swore to the truth of the information laid, before the warrant of arrest was issued by the Magistrate.
The Police Prosecutor admitted that there was no notice of intended prosecution or a Summons and further no evidence was taken from anyone before the issue of the Arrest Warrant.
The Magistrate duly recalled the Arrest Warrant and placed Mr. Singh on Self Bail to return to court on the 18th August, 2010 at Cove and John Magistrate’s Court.
It is interesting to note that the debacle of Mr. Singh’s arrest was not reported by a single Government News Agent, to wit: the Chronicle, channel 11, and their Associates the Guyana Times and channel 28. In his sojourn as a Judge of the High Court Mr. Singh had given several decisions against the Government and their agencies, including the grant of the injunction sought by Mr. Paul Slowe preventing the Commissioner of Police and the Police Service Commission from transferring him to a “desk job” at the Ministry of Home Affairs.
The GECOM decision, where Mr. Singh found that the non allocation of Government funds to the minority parties in Parliament to wit: the AFC and GAP for the purpose of paying scrutinizers in the Registration of Voters was unconstitutional and illegal.
The N&R decision where the owner of the guest house where “Blackie”, a notorious criminal was found and killed, had sued the Government for compensation for his building which was razed to the ground by G.D.F firebombs, Mr. Singh had awarded $125M to the owner.
All these decisions were publicity criticized by Ministers of the Government, and in the GECOM decision, by the President himself on Channel 11. This decision was subsequently upheld unanimously by the Judges of the Court of Appeal.
The refusal of the Government to pay Mr. Singh his retirement benefits and pension after him serving eight years as a Puisne Judge in the High Court has not passed unnoticed by the public, and the Government is well aware that negotiations for the payments having broken down, Mr. Singh will be filing legal proceedings in the High Court shortly.
One can only wonder if this latest move against Mr. Singh is a willful and designated act to embarrass and belittle him in the eyes of the public.
Motee Singh, Attorney at law

---

---